BANWARI LAL versus TIRLOK CHAND & OTHERS

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 23-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

- . -
BANWARILAL 
v. 
TIRLOK CHAND & OTHERS 
(AND vice versa) 
October 23, 1979 
[N. L. UNTWALIA & A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-.4doptio~A statement in a wl'll that certain person »'as adopt-
ed son, if enough proof of adoption-Tests of adoption-What are. 
G and J were the sons of S son of M. The plaintiff was the grandson of 
C 
another son of M. 
In a document purporting to have been executed by G it was stated that 
defendant No, 1 was his (G's) adopted son and heir and that C (his younger 
brother J's widow) and defendapt No. I bad rendered services to him, 
in, 
recognition of which he bequeathed properties detailed in the will to C to be 
enjoyed by her during her life time and that on her death defendant No. I 
D 
shall be their owner. 
E 
F 
G 
The plaintiff in his suit for partition claimed that the properties detaJ1ed 
in Schedule A to the plaint had been a<:quired by his great grandfather M, those 
in Schedu)e B were jointly a<:quired by G and J, both of whom constituted a 
joint Hindu family, and those in Schedule C which once belonged exclusively 
to J de5cended on his death to his wldow C. The plaintiff also challenged the 
adoption of defendant No. I. 
Defendant No. I on the other band claimed that since he was the adopted 
son of G the properties bequeathed to him by G's will were his exclusive 
properties. He also claimed that the properties in Schedule C were purchased 
by J's widow C with her strldbana, that by reason of her will he was entitled -
exclusively to those properties and that they never belonged to her late 
husband. 
• The trial court lleld that adoption had not been proved and that the motive 
for the execution of the will was not merely the recognition by the testator of 
his relationship through adoption with the devisee but mainly the existence of 
feelings of love and affection for him. 
The first appellate court held that the 
r,ecital in G's will that defendant No. 1 was his adopted son was sufficient to 
prove the fact of adoption. 
The High Court on the other hand was of the opinion that the recital in 
G's will that defendant No. 1 was his adopted son was not sufficient to prove 
the adopted and that the reference to adoption had been made merely as 1> 
description of the devisee and not as a motivation for the execution of the 
. will. 
HELD : Defendant No. I had not been successful in establishing the alleg-
ed adoption. [I 005 Fl 
.. 
• 
BANWARl LAL v. TIRLOKCHAND (Kasha!, /.) 
999 
!. (a) It is well-established that evidence in support of .an adoption must 
be sufficient to satisfy the very grave and serious onus that rests upon any 
person who seeks' to displace the natural succession by alleging an adoP'"' 
lion. [1005 D-E] 
A 
(b) The burden of proof of adoption in this case lay heavily on defendant 
B 
No. l which be has not discharged satisfactorily. This is not a case in 'vhich 
the adoption had taken place a very long time the suit was filed. 
It had in 
fact taken place within ?-bout a_ decade immediately preceding the suit when 
witnesses who were present at the ceremony and who hac.l seen the giving and 
taking would normally have been available. (He did not explain why no such 
witness was forthcoming. [1005 A-Bl 
(c) The relationship mentioned in the will that defendant. No. 1 was his 
adopted son and heir was merely a· description of the devisee as understood 
by the testator. The will was executed not because that relationship was 
brought about by adoption but by reason of feelings of affection which the 
ievisee had earned by his association with an:d the assistance rendered to the 
c 
testator. [!003 H-1004 Al 
D 
2. There is no force in the contention of the plaintiff that the will executed 
by C must be held to be wholly inoperative in so far as properties detailed 
in Schedules A and B. were concerned because one half of the properties 
mentioned in these schedules had vested in C under the will of G which itself 
declared that she would hold them merely as a Iife~tenant and that thereafter 
E 
they would devolve on defendant No. 1. In devising the properties to defendant 
No. l, C did no more than carry out the. behest of her own teslator, which 
beh~st was good in law. [1004 A-Cl 
CIVIL APPELLATE ]URJSDICTION 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1742-1743 
of 1969. 
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgmeut aud Order dated 
12-12-1968 of the Allahabad High Court in R.S.A. 
No. 
2777 of 
F 
1972. 
G 
S. N. Andley, Uma Datta and T. C. Sharma for the Appellant in 
CA 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.